We performed a comparison between Apache JMeter and OpenText ALM / Quality Center based on real PeerSpot user reviews.
Find out what your peers are saying about Apache, OpenText, Tricentis and others in Performance Testing Tools."The performance of the solution is excellent."
"The solution helps by detecting bottlenecks."
"The most valuable feature of this solution is that it is free."
"The reporting features are really good. There's a lot less latency than other solutions."
"Very user-friendly and easy to use."
"I like the fact that JMeter integrates well with other tools."
"The most valuable features are the ability to capture the entire traffic of particular pages and the proper readability of entire pages and entire APIs."
"We are using this for performance testing and some automation."
"Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is quite stable."
"Defect management is very good."
"Ability to customize modules, particularly Defect Tracking module on company specific needs"
"Micro Focus ALM Quality Center is a very good test management tool especially for writing test cases and uploading. You can even upload the test cycles from Excel. You get the defects and the reports, and also some automation using EFT which works with ALM."
"The best thing is that you can see your current status in real time... To see real-time updates, you just log in to ALM and you can see exactly what the progress is. You can also see if the plan for the day is being executed properly, and it's all tracked. From the management side, I find those features very valuable."
"It is stable and reliable."
"We can get an entire project into a single repository where we can view all the data in detail. This is where we keep all our test cases where everyone can reference them. This provides everyone access to the test cases and artifacts via the cloud. There is no need to contact anyone."
"Produces good reports and has a great traceability feature."
"There could be improvements in terms of memory utilization. We are going to migrate away from JMeter in the near future."
"The initial setup is complex and needs to be upgraded."
"The solution needs more metrics for reporting."
"Modeling a test is difficult. If you don't have much knowledge, you won't be able to do it easily. Testing APIs is also difficult."
"We would like more documentation to be provided for the advanced level features that are available in this solution, in order to improve development."
"The plug-ins make the reports heavy and they have to be run in non-GUI mode."
"The UI could be better."
"The solution is not user-friendly, there is no framework for autocorrelation or parameterization."
"Micro Focus is an expensive tool."
"It is pricey."
"The UFT tests don't work very well and it seems to depend on things as simple as the screen resolution on a machine that I've moved to."
"HPE ALM’s out-of-the-box reporting can be perceived as rigid and limited, to an extent."
"There's room for improvement on the reporting side of things and the scheduling, in general, is a bit clunky."
"I'd like to be able to improve how our QA department uses the tool, by getting better educational resources, documentation to help with competencies for my testers."
"There were multiple modules and stuff to the solution so maybe the requirements can map to test scripts. It can't map to test steps. If you've got a process that's set up and you've got multiple test scripts that are in it, each script has to be linked to the requirement and the whole set can't be. If we're doing process-driven testing, it's more difficult to do it at the script level, which is what we're finding from a traceability perspective."
"The uploading of test scripts can get a little cumbersome and that is a very sensitive task. They could improve on that a lot. It's really important that this gets better as I'm loading close to a thousand test scripts per cycle."
More OpenText ALM / Quality Center Pricing and Cost Advice →
Apache JMeter is ranked 1st in Performance Testing Tools with 82 reviews while OpenText ALM / Quality Center is ranked 6th in Application Lifecycle Management (ALM) Suites with 197 reviews. Apache JMeter is rated 7.8, while OpenText ALM / Quality Center is rated 8.0. The top reviewer of Apache JMeter writes "It's a free tool with a vast knowledge base, but the reporting is lackluster, and it has a steep learning curve". On the other hand, the top reviewer of OpenText ALM / Quality Center writes "Offers features for higher-end traceability and integration with different tools but lacks in scalability ". Apache JMeter is most compared with BlazeMeter, Postman, Tricentis NeoLoad, OpenText LoadRunner Professional and Katalon Studio, whereas OpenText ALM / Quality Center is most compared with Microsoft Azure DevOps, OpenText ALM Octane, Jira, Tricentis qTest and Zephyr Enterprise.
We monitor all Performance Testing Tools reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
